Little Fire

Not Ditching Class Tomorrow!

Posted by Boo , Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:20 AM

So. I've been doing my reading on intimate aggression, and rather than being paralyzed by anxiety, I am so excited! My professor asks us to email him a couple of questions ahead of class. Here are some of my thoughts (remember, since it's an email, not an essay, the terminology is not always academic lol).

this text rocks.

The inset on resilience reminded me of something. One thing that was very important for me in my relationships w both my father and my ex was that I protect them. Since abusers, once identified, were essentially outcast, i didn't want anyone to think that of them. I used to say to myself "they are not throw-away people!" But it seemed to me that once a person was identified as an abuser, that was, to the world, the only thing they were. That wasn't ok with me, 'cause I knew it wasn't true! Why ruin their lives because they were awful sometimes? It made no sense to me, even if they were hurting me a lot.

Do you think this ostracism of abusers was a backlash to a culture that for centuries has accepted and even encouraged intimate abuse?

Do you think it's time for the pendulum to come back to the middle and recognize that abusers, like victims, are people engaged in a transactional process involving mutually contingent interaction and that they are not just rotten to the core if they hit? That they are people as in need of intervention as the victims, in large part because the behavior may be mutually contingent? This helps victims, too, in that they're less likely to feel society will judge them as "weak" or "stupid."

Wouldn't it be helpful for us as professionals to try to remove the stigma from both parties so early intervention is possible?

After all, this idea put forth in the Age of Oprah that a victim need not feel shame while the abuser should shows little understanding of the dynamics within an aggressive intimate relationship. If there is shame to be felt, everyone is gonna feel it. That's just true. I don't need a single study to support that hypothesis, 'cause I know it's true.

...and the family becomes a closed system with "tight controls on information transmission."

Who does that help, really? And isn't that what we're really supposed to want? To help families be healthy? That's what I want, anyway.

Plus, the idea that "if he hits you once, he will hit you again, so leave then and never come back" is so rarely gonna be effective, based on social exchange and investment models. And maybe it even shouldn't, since, through the lens of family systems theory, these families are often characterized by periods of adaptation and stability, and conflict theory notes they are characterized by both conflict and harmony. So, while the bathwater is pretty nasty and toxic, why is it always necessary to throw the baby out with it?

The resilience inset suggests primary intervention efforts are best aimed at promoting competence and promoting positive outcomes while not ignoring risk-focused strategies. I really like the sound of that!

I also liked the idea that damaged families are seen not only as damaged. Because that's usually the end of the story and we folks from damaged families end up feeling pretty crappy and stuck. I like being though of as being challenged and able to address challenges adaptively.

Remember how panicked I was last week? Who would have thought I'd approach this particular class with excitement and hope? Great reading! :)

Those are just some cursory thoughts I had during reading. My thoughts are already evolving, as I read more, and I can't imagine what ideas I might have by the end of class.

The chapter in our text on intimate aggression ends with what the authors are willing to say they assume about the phenomenon. I found it so interesting I will transcribe it...

We assume that control is at the heart of intimate aggression. We assume that intimate aggression is simultaneously situated as a learned behavior; as a pattern of interaction; as a phenomenon that perpetrators and recipients react to, understand, and act on within prevailing discourses of gender, intimacy, sexuality, and violence; and as an occurrence that is deeply rooted in hierarchy, patriarchy, racism, heteronormativity, and inequity. We assume that intimate aggression is filled with contradictions and tensions: it occurs in the context of a loving relationship, it is shocking and hurtful behavior, and it may be preceded and followed by everyday acts of care/hostility/concern/control. We construct perpetrator/victim and/or mutually aggressive partners as active agents who are embedded in a context of romance and joy, control and dominance, patriarchy and equality. In addition, we assume that a both/and perspective can advance our understanding of the paradoxes and the processes of intimacy and aggression.

Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research
by Alan C. Acock (Editor), Vern L. Bengtson (Editor), David M. Klein (Editor), Katherine R. Allen (Editor), Peggye Dilworth-Anderson (Editor)

Maybe I've found my field?

I'm soooooo not about blaming the victim. I am also, though, not about demonizing the perpetrator. I'm not about name-calling, at all.

I just want it to stop. Everywhere. I just want it to not happen anymore. How can we make it not happen anymore?